Skip to main content

About your Search

20131202
20131210
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
and replace the savings so it wouldn't add to the deficit by increasing some government fees and perhaps requiring a higher contribution from federal workers for their retirement program and maybe about a 65 to $70 billion deal. it wouldn't be a deficit reduction deal, but it would, it would be an agreement on the level of discretionary spending or the appropriations bills for the next one or two years. >> host: and talk to us about scale. is the a large deal? is it a small deal if how does this kind of fit in our range of options? >> guest: this is not what you would call a grand bargain. it's a small deal. they deliberately set a pretty modest target because they thought something more ambitious wouldn't get done. so in the effort of finding some sort of an agreement for this year, this year's appropriations level and possibly it looks like next year's, they would just target that and see if they could reach an agreement on that, and that's kind of where we're headed. >> host: talking about the prospects for a budget deal this morning with the concord coalition's bob bixby. if you'd li
to replace the savings so it would not add to the deficit by increasing some government fees and perhaps requiring higher contributions and maybe a workers 60 52 $7 billion deal. it would be an agreement on the level of discretionary spending or the appropriations bills for the next two years. is this a large or small deal? caller: this is not what you would call a brain -- a grand bargain. they deliberately set it pretty modest target. finding some of sort of agreement for this year, this year's appropriations levels and possibly next year year's, they would target that. talking about the prospects of a budget deal this morning. you are welcome to join our conversation. democrats -- this weekend rob -- talked about the prospects of a budget yield and affording a government shutdown. [video clip] >> can you get an extension if you -- can you get an extension if it is paid for? >> that is $25 billion nobody was talking about until last week. it is an additional cost within this budget agreement. i'm glad to hear my colleagues say that it is not necessarily a sticking point. i think there
flow deficit. we get 10,000 beneficiaries every day and the absence of general reform that allow people to get the care that they need and deserve and abby slover cost growth it will fall under its own financial weight. >> for the secretary to affirm, $500 billion that isn't really chump change in the big picture of health care costs. i am getting comments from constituents in the district who medicare advantage folks now their benefits are being reduced. they are losing access to their preferred physicians. this is under the current system now. my question is how much worse can this get for my seniors who opt out for medicare advantage? again if the strategy for controlling costs is a traditional one of just cutting the provider members and whether its doctors, hospitals, it will backfire. that approach without reform that gives you the prevention and coordination and the better care congress ends up having to put the money back in because you haven't solved the problem. to not put the money back and is tonight bullies i -- deny seniors care. >> to have access to dialysis and the like
administrations have danced around the mission of our infrastructure deficit. for all the attention to the various fiscal cliffs, the looming infrastructure deficit is every bit as critical. for two centuries, infrastructure was a bipartisan issue, from lincoln with the transcontinental railroad to democrats and republicans coming together to launch the interstate freeway system, signed into law by president eisenhower, subsequent roads, transit and water investments helped fuel our economy and tie the nation together. more recently, the failure to address long-term funding has also been bipartisan. the bush administration ignored strong recommendations from their own private sector experts that they impaneled to give advice. although the obama administration did request and employ some modest funding in the recovery act and has proposed an infrastructure bank and talked extensively and i think sincerely about the need for investment, what has been lacking has been a specific concrete proposal from either party to address infrastructure financing in america. while the political maneuvering has sec
's infrastructure deficit. roads, bridges, transit systems are all increasingly at risk. we are facing an inadequate state of repair, construction of new facilities are on hold and we are losing ground in meeting our own needs, let alone the challenges of global competition. yet, this challenge is an opportunity for some potential progress. we know what to do to meet this challenge. we can write a new transportation bill that will meet today's needs. it just needs more money. there is a vast coalition that supports additional resources for infrastructure. the so-called special interests that are so often at odds are remarkably aligned when it comes time to recognize and fix this problem. business, labor, professional groups, local government, environmentalists, truckers, bicyclists all agree. the paralysis that surrounds questions of raising taxes does not necessarily need to apply in this case. ronald reagan, after all, was willing to sign into law a five cent gasoline tax increase 31 years ago when a nickel a gallon was real money. a user fee is in fact a different category from a general tax incr
health care costs shows up in entire paychecks for workers and/or deficits the government. indeed, the cbo estimates that in the second decade the aca is in effect once it is in effect it will shave .5% of gdp off our deficit every year. which is about $80 billion each year in today's economy. "the new york times" reports this morning that the cost of the aca are heading in the other direction. so economic benefits are going up, costs are going down. now, how do we implement all these benefits to make sure they translate to better care for everyone? because it will allow -- as i said, millions of americans have been benefiting from them since 2010. what we have to do is keep spreading the word so america's know that these options are available to them. for americans without insurance are working to help them get covered. this is where much of the attention has been since october 1. the new health insurance marketplace will help ensure millions of hard-working americans find affordable health care. in states where governors and legislators, candidates and state-based workstations w
. particularly when there is so much concern with the deficit and debt. medicare is historically aimed to set a men's to ma plans equal to what medicare would expect to pay in a traditional program. bys changed in 2003, and 2009 came into a considerably higher that medicare would have paid for the same beneficiaries if they were in the same program. this cost every beneficiary more and added part b damien's, providing little incentives to become more efficient. . found wide variations that suggests there was room for a lot more efficiency in the program. were incy changes that the aca reflect recommendations that congress'own commission has advocated for years. raised the concerns offerings to my mind are not consistent with the evidence on her part the way competitive markets work. the already addressed protections and places in the program. only five percent of beneficiaries in 2014 will have to shift plans. most will be able to stay in the same type of land. 21%average premium was down for a beneficiary, and premiums stable in 2014. some beneficiaries will see premiums rise in 2000 14. th
. particularly when there's so much concern with the deficit and debt. medicare has historically said payments to m.a. plans bundle or equal to what medicare would expect to play in the video program who enroll in the plan. this changed in 2003, and by 2009 payments were considerably higher than medicare would've paid for the same beneficiaries if they were in the traditional program. this cost every beneficiary more and added part b premiums and it provides little incentives for m.a. plans to become more efficient. when i examined the 2009 plan data i found wide variation in m.a. plans costs relative to traditional medicare spending. even going for plan levels, plant types and payment levels. that suggest there was room for a lot more efficiency in the program variable across plains. and the policy changes that were in the aca reflect recommendation that congress' own medicare payment advisory commission has advocated for years. third, many of the concerns raised about 2014 offerings either to my mind from what i've looked at are not consistent with evidence or in part of the way competitive
deficit after any recent downturn. it has been said in opposition to an extension that the federal emergency unemployment compensation program was adopted, and i quote, for extraordinary circumstances that are disappearing. no, no. these extraordinary circumstances continue adds indicated in the report issued just this morning by president obama's council of economic advisors, that highlights that the current long-term unemployment rate is at least twice as high as it was at the expiration of every previous extended ui benefit program. the extraordinary circumstances in a few words continue. the report also sets out the economic impact of a failure to act. it occurs with cbo, wall street analysts and other economists, that allowing the federal ui program to expire who cost our economy at least 200,000 jobs next year because of reduced consumer demand. for this congress to ignore the national economic impact would be shortsighted. to ignore the human, the individual human impact would be cold hearted. that is not the better nation, the better nature of our nation. and i trust of thi
were to continue, would lead to greater federal deficit, which would eventually reduce the nation's output in income, slightly what would occur under current law. so i believe we should be focused on how we get folks back to work. that is where the house has been focused. unfortunately, after 140-some bills we passed over to the senate, they still await even consideration at all by that body. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. we need to have the -- we don't have the time nor the inclination of going through the bills which the gentleman refers as jobs bills. of course we have an alternative and mr. van hollen will be talking about that in terms of jobs, investment, infrastructure, investment in education and growing jobs for our people. but the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, there are 1.3 million people who can't find a job. to say that they will be disincentivized because we continue to give them some support so they can survive and their families can survive during the period of time that they're looking for a job, th
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10